The various WTO agreements provided frameworks for negotiations to reform global trade. The specifics of the reform measures were to be negotiated among WTO members in subsequent rounds of negotiations. Therefore, on agriculture, the three pillars of the AoA—
71 domestic support, export subsidies and related issues, and market access—were the subject of negotiations. Members had to negotiate the intricacies of limiting domestic support and export subsidies provided to agriculture, and the opening of each other’s markets for agricultural products. In that course, as stipulated by the AoA, developed and developing countries would have to make different levels of commitment, which would obviously be less for the latter group of countries.
New negotiations did not start until late 1999. When they started, the wide differences among the WTO members, mainly between developed and developing country groups, came to the fore. In 2001, the Doha Round of trade negotiations was launched. It was called the
“development round” with promises to institute measures for global trade, including agricultural trade, that would benefit developing more than developed countries (Clapp 2006). As Farsund, Daugbjerg and Langhelle (2015) state, the negotiating agenda for agriculture as outlined in the Doha Declaration included all three pillars of the AoA:
improving market access, reducing, and ultimately phasing out, all forms of export subsidies, and substantially reducing trade-distorting domestic support. Of these agendas, the reduction in and gradual phase out of export subsidies and domestic support are essentially developed- country issues. For developing countries specifically, the negotiating agenda stated that they “should be allowed to consider their developmental needs, including food security and rural development” (Farsund, Daugbjerg & Langhelle 2015, p. 12).
It has been more than 16 years since the Doha Round was launched, and yet it remains far from conclusion. There are several issues that have held back the Doha Round from
concluding, one of which is the complex issue of agriculture. The AoA sought to gradually end distortions present in the food and agriculture sector by governing it through international trade rules. It also sought to address the concerns of NFIDCs and LDCs. However, it did not adequately take into consideration the food security and other concerns of other developing countries, mainly those having high-potential agriculture sectors (Clapp 2006). These
72 countries argued that the AoA did not go far enough in adequately reforming developed countries’ agriculture sectors. The AoA was designed in such a way that rather than creating a level playing field, it made developing countries’ agriculture less competitive compared to that of the developed countries. In addition, developing countries see their policy space related to agriculture development and food security being constrained due to the AoA (Gallagher 2007).
Earlier, domestic support was mainly the concern of a few developed countries as their support was beyond the permissible levels and therefore they were supposed to reduce it. Lately, a few developing countries such as India (Brink 2014), China and Indonesia14 have
seen their domestic support to agriculture rise substantially over the years. These developing countries claim that it is necessary for them to increase domestic support to their agriculture sector to address various socio-economic concerns as large proportions of their populations depend on agriculture. They are concerned that the WTO has been constraining their domestic agricultural policy-making authority. Therefore, developing countries have been effectively putting forth their proposals in the WTO negotiations through coalition building, such as through the G20 and the G33 (Eagleton-Pierce 2014; Narlikar & Tussie 2004). In the run-up to the Ninth WTO Ministerial in Bali in December 2013, the G33, led by India, had proposed that the government’s price support to agricultural goods for public
stockholding of food-stuffs for food security purposes not be subject to WTO discipline.15
Initially, this was opposed by the developed countries under the presumption that it would bring about distortions in world agricultural markets. A few developing countries also opposed it since they perceived that it would have a price-dampening effect, which would
14 Based on OECD data, available at https://data.oecd.org/agrpolicy/agricultural-support.htm, viewed 3 March
2017.
15 India envisages enlarging its price support programme to agriculture, but doing so under the current AoA
73 affect their agriculture sectors (Bellmann 2014). This became a major sticking point for the Ministerial to succeed, and in the final hours, although the proposal was not accepted in its original form, a temporary solution was found through a peace clause. In Bali, and in subsequent negotiations, it was decided that no WTO member would bring a legal case against any member that breaches its limit of price support for public stockholding purposes until a permanent solution to the issue is put in place. The decision had also been to negotiate and adopt a permanent solution by the 11th WTO Ministerial in 2017. The G33, and mainly
India, negotiated hard to turn the temporary solution to a permanent one as soon as possible, but there has not been major progress yet. Such constraints to domestic agricultural policy- making due to global trade rules, according to Farsund, Daugbjerg and Langhelle (2015), provide a reason for developing countries such as the G33 group to challenge the role of trade in ensuring food security.
Global agricultural trade is inevitable, and global trade rules are necessary to guide such trade. More importantly, global trade rules must be fair for all participants. Countries that have felt that current global trade rules have not been fair to them have been negotiating hard in the WTO to bring about changes in the trade rules to make it fair for all. It might not be possible to get the outcomes in their favour soon, but the gradual changes that have occurred point to the possibility of making global trade fair for all. The main issue of concern is, rather, as we will see below, the corporatisation of food and agriculture.